1996-08-20 - Re: CS First Boston lawsuit

Header Data

From: Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
To: “Timothy C. May” <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: 57a203680cc8cdd29cf94497f85aa6e91bed9e78b280866f67bba16f9d4e245a
Message ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960819170711.22993B-100000@larry.infi.net>
Reply To: <ae3d43f90a021004dcf8@[205.199.118.202]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-08-20 01:06:26 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:06:26 +0800

Raw message

From: Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:06:26 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: CS First Boston lawsuit
In-Reply-To: <ae3d43f90a021004dcf8@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960819170711.22993B-100000@larry.infi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Look at the bulletin board of your county courthouse. John Doe parties 
are not unusual at all.

Everyone is  deemed to have constructive  notice of notices on that board; 
furthermore, every jurisdiction I've ever seen, also provides for the 
_publication_ of process.  Ya know, that stuff in teensie-weensie print 
in the back of newspapers.

Most peoplke don't read that stuff. Some people do. It opens up a flavor 
of arbitraging.

Thread

• Return to August 1996

• Return to “Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>”
• Return to “Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>”
• Return to “Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com>”
• Return to ““Robert A. Rosenberg” <hal9001@panix.com>”

• Return to “tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)”

• 1996-08-19 (Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:09:25 +0800) - Re: CS First Boston lawsuit - tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
  • 1996-08-19 (Tue, 20 Aug 1996 03:36:29 +0800) - Re: CS First Boston lawsuit - Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
    • 1996-08-19 (Tue, 20 Aug 1996 07:55:12 +0800) - Re: CS First Boston lawsuit - Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com>
  • 1996-08-20 (Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:06:26 +0800) - Re: CS First Boston lawsuit - Alan Horowitz <alanh@infi.net>
  • 1996-08-22 (Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:22:31 +0800) - Re: CS First Boston lawsuit - “Robert A. Rosenberg” <hal9001@panix.com>